Paperback , Augmented ed. Published by Cornell University Press first published More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Pursuit of Signs , please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. I had never heard of this book before, or its author. Now, that might not sound terribly surprising, but I have been reading quite a lot about semiotics lately. This utterly changed and very much for the better with Chapter Three, Semiotics as a Theory of Reading. But this is a reading that is hard to justify from the actual text itself. You really do need to read more stuff into the poem than is explicitly there to make that reading. And that is a really good thing, I think. The ten or so pages from about page 75 where London is quoted in full are really worth reading — just wonderful.
The other chapter of this that blew me away was Chapter But this was particularly interesting and super clever. It starts by asking where are there so many conferences and books today on metaphor, but also points out that the idea of there being, say, a conference on synecdoche or simile seems odd to the point of being a joke. Why is that? The thing is that metaphors are like an advertisement years ago for a board game called Othello a moment to learn, a lifetime to master.
For instance, at high school when we were introduced to them by some jaded English teacher we were probably taught their meaning in opposition to similes. He is like a lion, simile — he is a lion, metaphor. Simplicity itself. The problem is that metaphors have a habit of stopping being obvious. That we no longer see as metaphors.
The bit I liked the most was him quoting Donald Davidson at the end of the chapter about a geometrical proof being like a mousetrap. I really liked this book and it was much more clear than I thought it might prove to be when I picked it up. Semiology, like linguistics, has a pretty bad name for being insanely difficult which, when you think about it, ought to be about the best definition of irony there is.
Really a nice read and very clever. Having read a few books and essays on semiotics, my opinion is that it's a hopelessly broad and floppy term: writings on semiotics seem to either be about things and the significance or meaning they have, or the way in which things can mean or signify other things. This encompasses everything from semantics to social perceptions and conditioning. Culler here makes a damn good effort to draw some of this together here but he's also throwing in 'literature' and 'deconstruction' into th Hrmmmmm Culler here makes a damn good effort to draw some of this together here but he's also throwing in 'literature' and 'deconstruction' into the mix.
The book is mostly semiotics and deconstruction applied to literature, so that narrows the scope a bit but Culler recommends a fairly broad understanding of literature so things still get hazy. Incedently the best summation of semiotics I have read occurs in - I think - the first chapter of Relevance where they have a fairly good knock down argument against a lot of the more technical writing on semiotics.
This is the first full literature theory book I have ever read and my impression is that there is an irritating tendency for people to try and show off just how much they have read, but this may well be because I have not read the things that these people have read and the references that Culler picks out really are useful anchor points to demonstrate his ideas - I'm not quite convinced. To be honest I'm not quite sure how to write this review, the book itself is a big jumbled up mess of a lot of sticky dense lumps of ideas, sometimes it seems like there's some great ideas in there, but by the time you untangle all the technical terms defined with examples - examples which are supposed to illustrate oddities of the technical terms themselves - you're often left wondering where your idea went.
Ultimately I think culler has just thrown too much stuff together here and there really is only the vaguest feeling of cohesion, direction or order, some of the ideas are really clever and stimulating but I don't think they really explain or illuminate much at all, I would not recommend this book as a guide so much as an introduction of how to be appropriately confused by semiotics, with a pleasant backdrop of literature if you're that way inclined.
All being said I think this book would be a lot more rewarding for someone who had read more of the literature he refers to, but ultimately I think that semiotics is not so much a dead end but one of those annoying roads that goes in the direction of the destination that you were trying to get to for ages but then slowly veers you round to the road that you started on, only now it's getting late and your still not sure which road to take, and your all cheesed off because y'know you were sure that that road was going to take you there, I mean why couldn't they have built like a small path just by like taking a slither off someone's garden, I know pedestrian traffic can be annoying, but I'm sure they wouldn't get that many people coming through here, I mean it's like a million miles to the other road, erghhhh Chapters 1 and 2 most interesting for me.
Literary analysis that follows less so.
Chapter on metaphor largely a faff as is the final chapter on graduate school. Still, an important book I hope to come back to. Jun 30, Matt rated it it was amazing. This is another of Culler's clever works of criticism. The chapter on apostrophe should be required reading for anyone interested in poetry, and the chapter on narrative brings new insights into what is often a dull discipline.
He often illustrates his literary theory with famous literary works, i. Shelley, Proust, Shakespeare but don't be discouraged if you haven't read them.
The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. +. Structuralist Poetics : Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature (Routledge Classics) . The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction The primary task of literary theory, Jonathan Culler asserts in the new edition of his classic in this field, is not to illuminate individual literary works but to explain Routledge classics.
You can follow his explanations even if you haven't read the texts he discusses. This book is less deconstructive than This is another of Culler's clever works of criticism. This book is less deconstructive than many of Culler's other works, despite the title. The first several chapters offer careful intellectual histories of New Criticism and literary semiotics.
I especially enjoyed how often he pokes holes in Stanley Fish although Fish's "Affective Stylistics" is recommended without reservation near the end of the book. Seller Inventory CHL More information about this seller Contact this seller. Light rubbing wear to cover, spine and page edges.
Very minimal writing or notations in margins not affecting the text. Possible clean ex-library copy, with their stickers and or stamp s. Seller Inventory Condition: Good. Owner's name on inside. Writing inside. Seller Inventory K06P Condition: Used; Good. Fast Dispatch.
Expedited UK Delivery Available. Excellent Customer Service. Seller Inventory BBI Several marks and scores on covers. Leading corners, edges and spine ends are slightly worn. Spine is cocked. Previous owner's name penned on front inside cover.
A few pages have minor pen marks. Binding is intact, contents are clear. Seller Inventory mon Condition: Near Fine.
Book Description Paperback. Condition: Very Good. The book has been read, but is in excellent condition. Pages are intact and not marred by notes or highlighting. The spine remains undamaged. Seller Inventory GOR Jonathan Culler. This specific ISBN edition is currently not available.